What independent clinical trials exist for Memo/Memo Blast or IQ Blast Pro ingredients and what do they show?

1. What a true product trial looks like — Memo® has at least one independent study

At least one randomized, double‑blind, placebo‑controlled clinical trial testing a natural combination similar to Memo® was published and indexed on PubMed Central: Morita and colleagues conducted a randomized, double‑blind, placebo‑controlled outpatient study on a Ginkgo biloba–Panax ginseng–royal jelly combination that reported effects on cognitive measures including Mini‑Mental State Examination scores in patients with mild cognitive impairment ^[1]. That trial was carried out in clinical settings in Alexandria, Egypt, and claimed measurable benefits compared with placebo, making it one of the few bona fide clinical evaluations of a multi‑herb cognitive blend cited in the sources ^[1].

2. Ingredient‑level trials cited by sellers: what they actually report

Marketing materials and third‑party reviews repeatedly point to clinical studies on individual ingredients: Bacopa monnieri trials showing improvements in memory after 8–12 weeks; citicoline (CDP‑choline) trials reporting ~15% improved recall at doses of 250–500 mg; phosphatidylserine pilot human trials showing effects on synaptic‑density markers; and Ginkgo and maritime pine bark studies reporting improved cerebral perfusion, antioxidant protection and modest memory gains in older adults ^{[4] [3] [5] [2]}. These references indicate there is a body of peer‑reviewed work on component compounds, not necessarily on the finished commercial formulas ^{[3] [2] [4]}.

3. Which findings are most consistent and clinically meaningful?

Across the ingredient literature cited by sellers and reviewers, Bacopa’s effect on delayed recall and learning over 8–12 weeks has relatively consistent support in randomized trials and is frequently invoked as the strongest single‑herb evidence for memory enhancement ^[4]. Citicoline has several clinical studies cited for boosting acetylcholine production and cognitive performance metrics; reviewers claim measurable improvements within weeks and maximal benefits after 60–90 days, although the sources are reviews or product pages summarizing those trials rather than reproducing primary data ^{[3] [2]}. Ginkgo and phosphatidylserine show smaller, mixed effects primarily in older adults or those with mild impairment ^{[5] [3]}.

4. Where the evidence is weak, overstated, or company‑sourced

Many claims supporting IQ Blast Pro rely on company web pages, product reviews, or aggregated “consumer trial” summaries rather than independent peer‑reviewed trials of the branded product; the official IQ Blast Pro site and multiple retailers present ingredient trials as if they validate the finished supplement, a marketing conflation that is not equivalent to a randomized clinical trial of the product itself ^{[2] [3] [4]}. References to trials such as “consumer trial data” or unpublished pilot studies should be treated as lower‑quality evidence until primary methods, sample sizes, and peer review are disclosed ^[5].

5. Bottom line and research gaps

The available sources document legitimate, independent clinical trials on individual ingredients and at least one trial of a Ginkgo–ginseng–royal jelly combination similar to Memo®, but they do not provide an independently conducted, peer‑reviewed randomized trial of the finished commercial formulations called “IQ Blast Pro” or a widely distributed “Memo Blast” product ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Consequently, any claim that the branded products themselves are clinically proven over placebo is not supported by the documents provided; the reasonable conclusion is that some ingredients have supportive human data while the product‑level evidence remains absent or company‑sourced ^{[3] [2] [5]}.